voidfeed_semantic_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses tier-based result limits (Void: 500, Surface: 5), which is useful behavioral information. However, no annotations exist; the description does not mention side effects, read-only nature, or any other behavioral traits beyond limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, action-first wording, no unnecessary text. Every sentence serves a purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema or annotations, so description must compensate. It provides tier limits but lacks details on ordering, error conditions, or how semantic search differs from other search tools. Sibling tools are many, and no context for choosing is given.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the limit information already in the schema (tier limits) and does not add further meaning to parameters like 'types' or 'q'. Minimal added value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool performs semantic search on VoidFeed content and returns relevant pieces. It is distinct from sibling tools like voidfeed_get_content or voidfeed_catalog, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as voidfeed_catalog or voidfeed_get_content. The description implies usage for searching but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.